U.S. EPA's Tack for Repealing Endangerment Rule Hinges on Legal Case, Not Science

Environmental attorney Matthew Leopold was quoted in an S&P Global article on the Trump Administration's decision to rescind the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2009 endangerment finding, the legal basis for federal greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation under the Clean Air Act, as well as repeal related vehicle GHG emission standards. He observed that the EPA's explanation for the move omitted a contested climate science report and instead relied on legal arguments: a narrower interpretation of the Clean Air Act, limited impact of U.S. vehicle standards on the global problem that is climate change and the position that Congress did not authorize EPA to address an issue of major economic and political significance. With litigation challenging the rescission expected, Mr. Leopold said the legal framework for reviewing agency authority has changed since 2009, affecting how courts may evaluate the rule now.

"We've had an administrative law revolution in the last few years in the Supreme Court," he remarked. "So the rules that were in place for reviewing the decision in 2009 are entirely different today than at that time because we have West Virginia, the major question doctrine and the Loper Bright case eliminating deference to agencies."

READ: U.S. EPA's Tack for Repealing Endangerment Rule Hinges on Legal Case, Not Science